oberinfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Casden Pernell
Hey, Jedd. I don't think it makes sense to single out the DG as a guild here. I'm sure many others find him worth loyalty too, and it's not like it's an official matter of dispute where guilds had to make a stand. Cassandrawiz (talk) 09:44, August 7, 2012 (UTC) Dragon's Gate takes exception to the implication that he is a moron, as they would never swear allegiance to someone that was unworthy. I realize this is your opinion, however it is not general sentiment, so we asked that our views be allowed to be expressed as well. RogueShayde (talk) 15:17, August 7, 2012 (UTC) Problem is: Qchars live longer than PCs and their transient lives. Casden currently is being played as a moron (your word, not mine), that's beyond discussion, if you read the logs. Or at least clearly as someone who is not the brightest, who doesn't remember who he is fighting or where his scouts are. I tried to make it so that both views were reflected without neither generating an OOC drama nor sticking it to specific PCs. Casden is a particular case, as you know well. It could be said that he made the MV quit the game, but that's OOC drama being used IC. Same would apply to the soap envolving Marthonis, Alys, and Kitiana. Sometimes it's fundamental to refer to PCs in a Qchar's entry (Asliendor and Elefin; Waldren and Kwesyther; Halforth and Razan, for example). Otherwise, I think it should be avoided, as it makes the bios dated. PCs rarely have any impact on the Qchar's overview... Thanks for using the talk page, though. I think it's better to have stuff discussed here when the entries are obviously the result of a lot of continuous work. Some will be better than others, and can obviously be revised. :) Cassandrawiz (talk) 15:36, August 7, 2012 (UTC) I disagree the statement that he is being played as a moron, as that is not the case in my interactions with him - and I have had plenty, but I suppose I can agree to disagree. I still don't like it being implied that my guild would work for an idiot, however. I would like it if there could be a compromise on this somehow RogueShayde (talk) 15:42, August 7, 2012 (UTC) Just as PCs live transient lives, so do GMs. The Qchar in question is obviously not acting a drooling bumbling buffoon and his speech does not imply a lack of faculties. It seems harsh and unfair to label a Qchar as such if the GM that played it, on one or more occasions, may not be the most experienced role-player or lacks an encyclopaedic knowledge of Oberin lore and RTQ events. Surely such things must be taken into account if we're to remain fair and objective... 16:35, August 7, 2012 (UTC) Thank you for working in a compromise on this. RogueShayde (talk) 23:44, August 7, 2012 (UTC) Hey. Judging from the edit to the actual page, I can see that the issue has already been resolved. Just one thing I'd like to say. People will have different opinions on Qchars and that's fine, but we want to be as objective as possible on the wiki. Make sure that the facts are presented as facts, and that the opinions are presented as opinions. Right now this page is spot on with that. Thanks for having this discussion! -Jedd the Fighter (talk) 01:54, August 8, 2012 (UTC) @Shayde: the current formulation was edited before we had this conversation. I've changed it as soon as I saw your suggestion of phrasing (which I thought was Jedd's at first, hence the address in the beginning), just taking out the DG reference. ;) @Jedd: in whichever form this page had, it was ALWAYS presented as opinions. Which is actually the way of adding to the wiki hints to parts of the plot that cannot be presented as facts. For example: what happened to Zem Stormbrow? "Rumour has it that he was sent to infiltrate the Hand". Who is Rengal? "Some people were convinced he was one of the Twins". Cassandrawiz (talk) 13:24, August 8, 2012 (UTC)